Pat Leahy Throws Cold Water On Obama's Hope For Miranda Fix (VIDEO)

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-V.T.) on Sunday threw a bit of cold water on chatter that the administration would seek a legislative fix to expand the amount of time a terrorist suspect could be interrogated without reading Miranda warnings.

Congressional action isn't out of the realm of possibility, Leahy said. But the scope of what lawmakers could do is limited by the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled Miranda warnings to be a constitutional right.

"I sat down and talked with the president about this," Leahy said during an appearance on ABC's "This Week." "The question is not so much whether I'm concerned about the civil rights one way or another, it is what a court will agree to. After all, it was the Supreme Court that set down the rules of Miranda. Whatever changes might be made, have to made within the confines of what the United States Supreme Court has already said.

"I think the president and [Attorney General] Eric Holder understand that," he added. "Certainly there is an emergency doctrine that allows you -- if you have taken somebody in custody who is a terrorist -- to continue to question them for a period of time without them being presented to a magistrate or being given the Miranda warning. And certainly in the last several cases of people who have been apprehended we have gotten tremendous -- and are continuing to get tremendous -- information from those people...I think you have to have maximum flexibility within the rules, but the idea that you're going to be able to pass a statute to change a Constitutional ruling of the Supreme Court, you can't do that."

Leahy's reading of the political leeway available to alter the construct of Miranda warnings seems to echo that offered by much of the legal community. There is, quite simply, not much the Obama administration can do to expand the "public-safety" exception that allows it to question suspected terrorist for relatively lengthy periods of times before reading them their warnings.

Nevertheless it seems clear that the administration wants some room to maneuver. Attorney General Eric Holder expressed hope for a legislative fix to the Miranda construct during an appearance on ABC's "This Week" last Sunday. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president wanted "limited flexibility" on this front. This Friday, meanwhile, the New York Times' reported the following:

President Obama's legal advisers are considering asking Congress to allow the government to detain terrorism suspects longer after their arrests before presenting them to a judge for an initial hearing, according to administration officials familiar with the discussions.

Watch Leahy's appearance:

Comments

[Frenbar]

11:46 PM on 05/17/2010

I guess since Holder isn't bothering to prosecute any Bush era crimes he has plenty of time to think of ways to deprive us of the few rights we have left.

[nexxtep54]

06:29 PM on 05/17/2010

A message from the dead. Get all these greedy old men out of office
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zu9oUAofLY&feature=channel

[Coinyer101]

03:45 PM on 05/17/2010

Good! The President's wrong on this one....,good thing he ain't king.....,

[wyldthings]

03:07 PM on 05/17/2010

Let me understand At any reasonable time the President of the United States can suspend the Constitution itself. So Senator Leahey wants to tell the President what to do during war time.

[Coinyer101]

03:48 PM on 05/17/2010

Did someone declare 'war' on someone? When did this happen? WHY WASN'T I NOTIFIED?!!

lol [There has been no 'declaration of war' so, the war powers act does not apply, or so I'm told. I tried to use a similar argument on the issue of DADT.....,]

[wyldthings]

07:10 PM on 05/17/2010

Bro, relax it's my understanding that the President at any time can call in the National Guard and suspend all kinds of Constitutional rights.
Don't worry just remember Grand daddy purple fusion. reellaaxxx!

[MARYHOBE]

01:21 PM on 05/17/2010

I know liberals would like the President to follow the left on whatever issue that comes up. But leadership also entails listening to all those who are "on the team". And that means being conciliatory and reaching consensus on any given problem. This is not an easy issue! To ask Americans to give up their lives, to endanger their wellbeing and even more, to endanger the lives of their loved ones is not a small deal, its a big deal and I would remind everyone that the issue is under discussion and public policy is being formed as we speak. And in the end I think a rational and equitable resolution will be found. Just make sure your own opinion is expressed and heard.

[Malarcus]

03:23 PM on 05/17/2010

That's funny, Mary. Do tell, when might be the last time you called for conciliation from a Republican?

[LynnW49]

12:32 PM on 05/17/2010

And here I thought President Obama was a Constitutional scholar. He must have studied the spandex version of the Constitution and subsequent Supreme Court rulings. I had hoped he'd be better than that.

[glockman]

11:49 AM on 05/17/2010

"think you have to have maximum flexibility within the rules, but the idea that you're going to be able to pass a statute to change a Constitutional ruling of the Supreme Court, you can't do that."

So what does that do for Citizens United?

[LynnW49]

12:35 PM on 05/17/2010

Apparently it all depends on the "flexibility" of the court itself.
And let's just hope that his pick of Kagan is not meant to introduce the same kind of "maximum flexibility" where the President wants it.

[glockman]

12:47 PM on 05/17/2010

Somehow I feel this statement will be conveniently forgotten by Leahy when the time comes to deal with Citizens.

Having said that, I don't agree with the Citizens ruling. But I don't see how you can make a statement like this about one SCOTUS issue/ruling, and have it suddenly not be relevant to another.

[jjtx]

10:47 AM on 05/17/2010

Also, instead of having anything to do with the Miranda warning (because it certainly does not), this proposal has to do with the privilege of habeas corpus. In article 1, Section 9 of the constitution, "the privilege of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion, or invasion the public safety may require it." It would seem that the administration's proposal has more to do with this and nothing to do with Miranda.

[jjtx]

10:35 AM on 05/17/2010

The proposal to extend the time allowed before a suspect comes before a judge does not have anything to do with the reading of some of our constitutional rights on the Miranda card.

BTW, It drives me crazy to hear these referred to as the Miranda rights; Miranda does not give us rights, the constitution gives us rights.

In fact, the Miranda card only lists two of our constitutional rights: the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. We have many more.

[MARYHOBE]

10:27 AM on 05/17/2010

The senior senator of Vermont does not like these proposed changes and a little public support for our civil rights would go a long way. I know and understand that this is a tough issue. How can we ask our citizens to live under some threat to their well being or their family's wellbeing? How can we ask them to pay the ultimate sacrifice for a cause of civil rights? When I ask friends for their reaction, most answer without hesitation that they would be willing to sacrifice but when pressed upon to answer if they would be willing to accept the sacrifice of a loved one; there is understandable hesitation. What I would finally conclude with is that we are at war and what are we fighting for? Is it not our rights; and to give them up in a war for the civil rights that we hold dear, sounds a little bit contradictory.

[TheMightyMidget]

10:08 AM on 05/17/2010

"If you don't stick to your values when they're being tested, they're not values. They're hobbies."

-J Stewart.

[jjtx]

10:37 AM on 05/17/2010

Oh yes indeed. Does not J. Stewart often say profound things?

[Tekkdude]

03:48 PM on 05/17/2010

Or as Ben Franklin said and I think of often these days, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. "

[PWM]

10:02 AM on 05/17/2010

The Miranda Rights were created to benefit the police who up to that time would go to court and have the testimony they collected tossed out as the suspect was not informed he could remain quite. I suspect the same problem will happen her. Don't tell him he can remain silent only to have his lawyer then bring it to the judge's attention that the testimony should be tossed out.

[redsox4]

09:47 AM on 05/17/2010

I really can't figure you guys out?????? I thought Progressives were the smart ones. Every argument is very weak and projects emotions not logic.

[hahaney]

10:00 AM on 05/17/2010

At least they have an argument. Where's yours?

Miranda only protects someone for having what they say being used against them.

Shahzad voluntarily waived his right to an initial court appearance and agreed to answer questions while in custody. His decision to talk and the open-ended, undetermined duration of the dialogue are allowed by law. This is all legal even with the Miranda law. He is being held in an undisclosed location as is common practice with all high profile detainees. He is being detained and has not yet been formally charged. Therefore no inmate records.

A congressional resolution passed after Sept. 11 provided the President all powers necessary and appropriate to protect American citizens from terrorist attacks, the decision said. "Those powers include the power to detain US citizens who took up arms against this Nation......"

[TN60]

09:28 AM on 05/17/2010

The last I read was that no one at the WH. especially Obama, has called for anything concerning Miranda.

It was all trumped up by a right wing nutter blog that the press, like Drudge picked up.

Do you really think a Constitutional scholar of Obama's stature would ask for such a thing?

Just more dirt and tripe from the wing nuts and the wing nutter's silly little world of small minds.

[I-US]

09:41 AM on 05/17/2010

Hmmm...Well, I'll assume you trust this website since you're posting here. Below are the two articles written by HP writers Nico Pitney and Sam Stein regarding what Eric Holder said and what Gibbs said Obama wants.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/11/obama-wants-limited-flexi_n_572190.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/09/eric-holder-miranda-right_n_569244.html

[TN60]

10:45 AM on 05/17/2010

No....I-US...I do not agree with all the HP writers and HP is not a sacred cow, that I must bow down to. Often they link to other news networks or blogs and I do think their headline writers get over zealous sometimes.

I have made HP my home because I agree with articles a lot on this site, and because I have made some outstanding friends along the way, which I appreciate and love them.

But as we are all individuals, with our own reasoning ability, we do have our own opinions, plus I, and they, read stories from other newspapers and blogs and do not need a "Luntz" to give us talking points.

[TheMightyMidget]

10:03 AM on 05/17/2010

THANK YOU. You beat me to it. This has been totally blown out of proportion.

After the Times Square arrest and McCain and the other wackaloons started in with how Miranda somehow shouldn't apply even though he was a US citizen, people rightly denounced it as a violation of our constitution. Afterward, however, Holder voiced an opinion that the AG's office should further examine the Public Safety exception to Miranda as it pertains to terrorism suspects to determine what the authorities cna and should do procedurally in the case where an immediate public safety concern might be outweighed - again, in the immediate term - by the full rights accorded by Miranda. He was NOT - huffpo headlines to the contrary - somehow suggesting we should just "drop Miranda" for anybody suspected of terrorism; far from it.

[unstuffedshirt]

10:12 AM on 05/17/2010

Correct, but the "examination" of the "public safety exception" as it pertains to "terrorism suspects" is actually quite troubling on its own.

Chip, chip, chip.

[TN60]

10:59 AM on 05/17/2010

That is entirely correct, Mighty. After McCain's silly and insane idea, like all the Republicans who are for torture as a panacea, Holder did his best to say he would examine in case of immediate danger to the public. No one in this administration has said a thing about Miranda as it applies to US citizens.

This is just another attempt by the nutters to try their dead level best to compare Obama to Bush, as if to say he is no different, to make it so Bush does not look like the complete idiot that he is.

If sane people cannot see the difference, then who am I to stop them from smoking or taking their own brand of hallucinatory meds...or not

[jazzman]

09:17 AM on 05/17/2010

Obama's continuation of Bush's policies that assault our judicial and Constitutional rights is the biggest disappointment I have in the man. It is the one thing that might persuade me not to support him in the next election in terms of actively working or financially supporting him. Shame on Obama.

[TheMightyMidget]

10:06 AM on 05/17/2010

Read more about what has been actually said by Holder and Obama. You might be pleasantly surprised to find out he hasn't actually done anything or suggested anything in violation of the constitution. There's been no assault on our judicial rights. Our constitutional rights under Obama have remained axactly the same. Please don't fall into the trap laid by the conservatives that Obama is gouging the constitution by turning us into a socialist regime, but also don't fall into the trap of thinking, like some of our liberal brothers and sisters, that Obama has somehow moved to shred the constitution in the same was as Bush.

[TN60]

11:04 AM on 05/17/2010

It's the same old tripe of "poor me, I'm so disappointed in Obama, because ______..and I may not vote for him again, as if they ever did.

They are a tiresome bunch, they make my teeth fall asleep, not counting what my cat thinks of them, She is asleep as we speak, so you know it is tiresome LOL